80% of all fatalities caused by upper torso injuries could have been prevented if Bush would have spent some of the money he gave back to millionaires through tax cuts on some proper body armor.
posted on January 7, 2006 04:05:18 PM
Limpy,
You don't have any idea what's going on in the world, do you? Do you have any idea how this anti-American propaganda hurts American soldiers?
Do a little investigation on the time line of body armor.
When improvements have come about?
When they went into production?
Why some that say they are better real aren't?
This is just more bullsh*t.
Do you think anyone could actually say one person may or may not have lived do to the particular body armor they were wearing?
Do you know how many soldiers would rather wear lighter (not as effective) body armor compared to the heaver stuff?
posted on January 7, 2006 04:08:03 PM
Nice spin, did you just decide your comments based on not reading the entire article or just don't have a basic reading comprehension?
What the article is saying is that the armor currently in use needs upgrading and the Marines had asked the medical examiner to assist with the report. There is no other body armor available they have the best that is right now. It is not adequate and will need an upgrade.
President Bush is not at fault here. Other than your opinion which stinks like my azzhole.
LOL Colin I think we were typing at the same time.
Ron
"Better to be hated for who you are than loved for who you are not."
[ edited by WashingtoneBayer on Jan 7, 2006 04:08 PM ]
posted on January 7, 2006 04:15:18 PM
You know, what I've noticed is the ones who scream the loudest about how terrible this President is about our troops....are always the ones we never heard a WORD from while clinton decreased funding to our military/soldiers by 40%.
The ones who opposed this war use their deaths and all the other GARBAGE they can come up with to discredit a President that supports these troops probably more than any democratic president ever did. Shameful....just shameful.
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
posted on January 7, 2006 04:34:41 PMcolon...Do you have any idea how this anti-American propaganda hurts American soldiers?
Not as much as sending them to die in a pointless war.
colonic...Do you think anyone could actually say one person may or may not have lived do to the particular body armor they were wearing?
Absolutely. That is what the Pentagon study determined. They have dummies with sensors on them that they put armor on and shoot to determine the damage a human would sustain.
colostomy...Do you know how many soldiers would rather wear lighter (not as effective) body armor compared to the heaver stuff?
Yes, I would imagine they would probably rather be in shorts and a t-shirt, but that doesn't mean they should be, does it?
WarshingtonBare...What the article is saying is that the armor currently in use needs upgrading and the Marines had asked the medical examiner to assist with the report. There is no other body armor available they have the best that is right now. It is not adequate and will need an upgrade.
Do some research and you will see that there are 2 upgrades available now and one in development. Nobody has pushed to buy them because it would mean upgrading everyone, which would add considerably to the cost of Bush's tryst in Afghaniraq.
That is soooooo cute that you two lovers spell ass the same way. Adorable.
posted on January 7, 2006 04:54:56 PM
The armor has been available since 2003 but the Pentagon has declined to suppy it to the troops...even though there were calls from the field for additional protection.
posted on January 7, 2006 05:35:26 PMBear1949...For those of you on the wrong (left) side, there is NO TRAUMA PLATE that can completely protect the underarm area.
No. According to the study, it could only have saved 80% of them.
And your anti war backstabbing does?...Call it what you want, but it doesn't sting like a bullet.
Marines have ALWAYS been the last to receive the most modern upgraded equipment. Not because of lack of availibility but because of lack of funding....That was the entire point of the post. Thank you.
posted on January 7, 2006 05:44:02 PM
Well, he wasnt in office 5 years when they went into the war though. What time frame does this study cover? Ihavent read it...I'm busy pondering the condition of humanity! lol!!
[ edited by dblfugger9 on Jan 7, 2006 05:44 PM ]
posted on January 7, 2006 05:50:16 PM
I think that there may be some confusion here...This is the complete article, Dbl.
January 6, 2006
Extra Armor Could Have Saved Many Lives, Study Shows
By MICHAEL MOSS
A secret Pentagon study has found that at least 80 percent of the marines who have been killed in Iraq from wounds to their upper body could have survived if they had extra body armor. That armor has been available since 2003 but until recently the Pentagon has largely declined to supply it to troops despite calls from the field for additional protection, according to military officials.
The ceramic plates in vests currently worn by the majority of military personnel in Iraq cover only some of the chest and back. In at least 74 of the 93 fatal wounds that were analyzed in the Pentagon study of marines from March 2003 through June 2005, bullets and shrapnel struck the marines' shoulders, sides or areas of the torso where the plates do not reach.
Thirty-one of the deadly wounds struck the chest or back so close to the plates that simply enlarging the existing shields "would have had the potential to alter the fatal outcome," according to the study, which was obtained by The New York Times.
For the first time, the study by the military's medical examiner shows the cost in lost lives from inadequate armor, even as the Pentagon continues to publicly defend its protection of the troops. Officials have said they are shipping the best armor to Iraq as quickly as possible. At the same time, they have maintained that it is impossible to shield forces from the increasingly powerful improvised explosive devices used by insurgents. Yet the Pentagon's own study reveals the equally lethal threat of bullets.
The vulnerability of the military's body armor has been known since the start of the war, and is part of a series of problems that have surrounded the protection of American troops. Still, the Marine Corps did not begin buying additional plates to cover the sides of their troops until this September, when it ordered 28,800 sets, Marine Corps officials acknowledge.
The Army, which has the largest force in Iraq, is still deciding what to purchase, according to Army procurement officials. They said the Army is deciding between various sizes of plates to give its 130,000 soldiers; the officials said they hope to issue contracts this month.
Additional forensic studies by the Armed Forces Medical Examiner's unit that were obtained by The Times indicate that about 340 American troops have died solely from torso wounds.
Military officials said they had originally decided against using the extra plates because they were concerned they added too much weight to the vests or constricted the movement of soldiers. Marine Corps officials said the findings of the Pentagon study caused field commanders to override those concerns in the interest of greater protection.
"As the information became more prevalent and aware to everybody that in fact these were casualty sites that they needed to be worried about, then people were much more willing to accept that weight on their body," said Major Wendell Leimbach, a body armor specialist with Marine Corps Systems Command, the marine procurement unit.
The Pentagon has been collecting the data on wounds since the beginning of the war in part to determine the effectiveness of body armor. The military's medical examiner, Craig T. Mallak, told a military panel in 2003 that the information "screams to be published." But it would take nearly two years.
The Marine Corps said it asked for the data in August 2004; but it needed to pay the medical examiner $107,000 to have the data analyzed. Marine officials said funding and other delays resulted in the work not starting until December 2004. It finally began receiving the information by June 2005. The shortfalls in bulletproof vests are just one of the armor problems the Pentagon continues to struggle with as the war in Iraq approaches the three-year mark, The Times has found in an ongoing examination of the military procurement system.
The production of a new armored truck called the Cougar, which military officials said has thus far withstood every insurgent attack, has fallen three months behind schedule. The small company making the truck has been beset by a host of production and legal problems.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon is still relying on another small factory in Ohio to armor all of the military's principal transport truck, the Humvee, and it remains backlogged with orders. The facility, owned by Armor Holdings, increased production in December after reports in The Times about delays drew criticism from Congress. But the Marine Corps said it is still waiting for about 2,000 of these vehicles to replace other Humvees in Iraq that are more lightly armored, and does not expect final delivery until June.
An initiative begun by the Pentagon nearly two years ago to speed up production by having additional firms armor new Humvees remains incomplete, Army officials said.
Body armor has gone through a succession of problems in Iraq. First, there were prolonged shortages of the plates that make the vests bulletproof. This year, the Pentagon began replacing the plates with a stronger model that is more resistant to certain insurgent attacks.
Almost from the beginning, some soldiers asked for additional protection to stop bullets from slicing through their sides. In the fall of 2003, when troops began hanging their crotch protectors under their arms, the Army's Rapid Equipping Force shipped several hundred plates to protect their sides and shoulders. Individual soldiers and units continued to buy their own sets.
The Army's former acting secretary, Les Brownlee, said in a recent interview that he was shown numerous designs for expanded body armor back in 2003, and instructed his staff to weigh their benefits against the perceived threat without losing sight of the main task: eliminating the shortages of plates for the chest and back.
Army procurement officials said that their efforts to purchase side ceramic plates have been encumbered by their much larger force, and that they wanted to provide manufacturers with detailed specifications. Also, they said their plates will be made to resist the stronger insurgent attacks.
The Marines said they opted to take the older version of ceramic to speed delivery. As of early last month, officials said marines in Iraq had received 2,200 of the more than 28,000 sets of plates that are being bought at a cost of about $260 each.
Marine officials said they have supplied troops with soft shoulder protection that can repel some shrapnel, but remain concerned that ceramic shoulder plates would be too restrictive. Similarly, they said they believe the chest and back plates are as large as they can be without unduly limiting the movement of troops.
The Times obtained the 3-page Pentagon report after a military advocacy group, Soldiers for the Truth, learned of its existence. The group posted an article about the report on its website earlier this week. The Times delayed publication of this article for more than a week until the Pentagon confirmed the veracity of its report. Pentagon officials declined to discuss details of the wound data, saying it would aid the enemy.
"Our preliminary research suggests that as many as 42 percent of the Marine casualties who died from isolated torso injuries could have been prevented with improved protection in the areas surrounding the plated areas of the vest," the study concludes. Another 23 percent might have been saved with side plates that extend below the arms, while 15 percent more could have benefited from shoulder plates, the report says. In all, 526 marines have been killed in combat in Iraq. A total of 1,706 American troops have died in combat.
The findings and other research by military pathologists suggests that an analysis of all combat deaths in Iraq, including those of Army personnel, would show that 300 or more lives might have been saved with improved body armor.
Military officials and defense contractors said the Pentagon's procurement troubles have stemmed in part from miscalculations that underestimated the strength of the insurgency, and from years of cost-cutting that left some armoring firms on the brink of collapse as they waited for new orders.
To help defeat roadside ambushes, the military in May 2005 contracted to buy 122 Cougars whose special V-shaped hull helps deflect roadside bombs, military officials said. But the Pentagon gave the job to a small firm in South Carolina, Force Protection, that had never mass-produced vehicles. Company officials said a string of blunders has pushed the completion date to June.
A dozen prototypes shipped to Iraq have been recalled from the field to replace a failing transmission. Steel was cut to the wrong size before the truck's design drawings were perfected. Several managers have left the firm.
Company officials said they also lost time in an inter-service skirmish. The Army, which is buying the bulk of the vehicles, asked for its trucks to be delivered before the Marine vehicles, and company officials said that move upended their production process until the Army agreed to get back in line behind the marines. "It is what it is, and we're running as fast as we can to change it," Gordon McGilton, the company's chief executive, said in an interview at its plant in Ladson, S.C.
On July 5, two former employees brought a federal false claims case that accuses Force Protection of falsifying records to cover up defective workmanship. They allege that the actions "compromise the immediate and long term integrity of the vehicles and result in a deficient product," according to legal documents filed under seal in the United States District Court in Charleston and obtained by The Times.
The legal claim also accuses the company of falsifying records to deceive the military into believing the firm could meet the production deadlines. The United States Attorney's office in South Carolina declined to comment on the case. The Marine Corps says the Justice Department did not notify it about the case until December.
Force Protection officials said they had not been made aware of the legal case. They acknowledged making mistakes in rushing to fill the order, but said there were multiple systems in place to monitor the quality of the trucks, and that they were not aware of any deficiencies that would jeopardize the troops.
posted on January 7, 2006 06:13:03 PM
ok,helen thanks. When I get a clear minute I will read it through and see if I can find something to argue with you about it
posted on January 7, 2006 07:49:10 PMbullets and shrapnel struck the marines' shoulders, sides or areas of the torso where the plates do not reach.
My point exactly.......It is entirely impossible to completely cover a vest with trauma plates. In doing so the movement & mobility of the soldiers would be so impaired they could not maneuver.
deadly wounds struck the chest or back so close to the plates that simply enlarging the existing shields "would have had the potential to alter the fatal outcome," according to the study, which was obtained by The New York Times.
So what aboout the areas the larger trauma plates do not cover?
While they are at it why not design a trauma plate to complete encase the soldier, oh they already have several. They are called Strykers, Bradleys & M1 Abrahams.
So explain it for us then.
Anyone without neftballs for brains understands the statement.
Or are you another Helen/Craw?
"“More Iraqis think things are going well in Iraq than Americans do. I guess they don’t get the New York Times over there.”—Jay Leno".
posted on January 7, 2006 08:36:17 PMROFLMHO @ your last TWO comments, dbl...how funny you are. I laughed until tears were in my eyes.
I'm busy pondering the condition of humanity! lol!!....and that you were finding something to fight/argue with helen about.
You're just too good....OMG
----------------------
And boy old nerfballwilly sure is losing his kool.....look at all the name calling insults.....so unlike most of the liberals here.
NBW - you need to take a deep breath and understand all is well...this President is in FULL CONTROL...and you have no worrys. It's not your butt on the line...probably never has been or will be.
But hey....if it makes you feel better to lower yourself to that level...then join the other liberals here. Go for it.
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
posted on January 7, 2006 08:59:26 PM
Like you, mingo, would EVER put your life on the line.
No...chicken...but you sure can spout off at the mouth about how those who HAVE served our country and those whose family members have don't support our troops.
Just more of your usual VOMIT.....lindablair.....
While the democratic party complains about everything THIS President does to protect our Nation:
What would a Democrat president have done at that point? Apparently, the answer is: Sit back and wait for the next terrorist attack.
Ann Coulter
posted on January 7, 2006 09:04:01 PM
The study is part of an on going quandry within the military. Of course, mainly out of stupidity, the lefties create their own conclusion.
Armor is a trade-off of protection, weight, and mobility. It is constantly evolving depending on the data collected. The troops today face a different enemy and tactics than ever before. The armor was not designed for this. In studying the casualties they discovered deaths caused by fragments that bypassed the armor. So the question becomes whether or not the armor should be extended to these areas in exchange for a decrease in mobility.
Just think the glee Helen et al could have if casualties increased because troops couldn't move fast enough to get out of the way.
It's a win-win situation. But only for left wing morons.
posted on January 7, 2006 10:15:20 PM
We have been at war for a couple of years now--and throughout that time we have been hearing from soldiers and their families about the lack of both proper body armour and shielding for vehicles. In fact, families have been providing armour for their sons & daughters out of their own pockets, and soldiers have had to build makeshift shielding for the vehicles they use. And every single time in the past couple of years that this problem is brought up we hear "these things take time!" Well, they've had all the time they need--and the problem still exists.
What a piss-poor way of supporting the military on the part of the government that sent them to war.
And I just love this statement: Do you have any idea how this anti-American propaganda hurts American soldiers? I really don't think that telling the truth on this matter hurts our soldiers. After all, they certainly have been aware of it all along. Trying to get the problem rectified helps them--or should they just keep on getting killed due to something that could be fixed?!?
____________________
posted on January 8, 2006 05:04:34 AM
Linda, I wasnt really trying to be funny right there but glad you laughed.
OT, I agree they should have whatever they need to continue to fight this war. But I can also see how that armour would weight them down and affect their mobility as desquirrel described. All the stuff they carry is heavy as it is. I also thought I read there were problems with the manufactuing of it?
posted on January 8, 2006 05:47:31 AM
nerfballwillie,
GREAT POST!!! Now I can read the LIES from the NEOCONS. They will make fools of themselves with their replies.
Examples of NEOCON thinking below.
colin said,"You don't have any idea what's going on in the world, do you?"
WashingtoneBayer said, President Bush is not at fault here. Other than your opinion which stinks like my azzhole.
LIAR_K brings up OLD history LOL. Then gets nasty LOL. Neocons are great History buffs, heck they are still talking about the Great American President F.D.R. some 60 years later.
BEAR1949 said, "Anyone in the Corp KNOWS this is the price you pay for being a Marine."
Bear says, YOU FIGHT WITH WHAT YOU GOT NOT WITH WHAT YOU SHOULD HAVE.
defogger, talks about funding. Finding her funding in DUMPSTERS has taught her well about NEOCON FUNDING AND THE LACK OF IT.
AFTER bunnicula said.
"What a piss-poor way of supporting the military on the part of the government that sent them to war."
NO MORE LIES AND INSULTS FROM THE NEOCONS. AFTER ALL THE NEOCONS HAVE NOW BEEN EXPOSED WITH NOTHING LEFT TO SAY.
posted on January 8, 2006 06:01:07 AM
LOL beepa, throw yer fishing pole far out into the lake - see what bites, huh? Name dropper!
Sorry to disappoint you but my dumpster diving was limited to finding packing material for some furniture. You, though, I bet your whole life has been one antique (read as just old and useless) dumpter dive.
posted on January 8, 2006 06:06:57 AM
Of course, linda didn't really find your remark to me funny, Dbl.
Although some may question the emotional stability of someone who laughs so inappropriately and with such frequency, linda sees laughter as a tool, especially useful to her when words fail and she struggles to debate an issue by attacking her opponent with mocking laughter.
